Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Please actually read the case files and evidence presented by the state, your characterization of her is incorrect. The jury's verdict confirms that.


sort by: page size:

> presumably there was supporting evidence of the harrasment charges

Yeah, the media shitshow...

There were no DeepFakes, a few text messages raising concerns about some young girls' behavior and a DA running around during an election year slandering this woman to get votes. Oh, and a lying teenager capitalizing on the drama to get movie and book deals.

The result: a woman who's life was forever turned upside down and found guilty by an "impartial" jury.


> Nothing she did deserves what happened. Nothing.

she was convicted of harrasment of minors by a jury in a court of law. presumably there was supporting evidence of the harrasment charges, and that's not something that the article disputes.


> there were a lot of false results due to mishandling the blood samples

This doesn't hold with what was found in the trial. She was found not guilty on those counts. Just because a dude wrote it down in a book doesn't mean it's true. And the legal process found it to be, in fact, not true.


> she was convicted of harrasment of minors by a jury in a court of law.

Yeah, she was. Mostly because the jury bought the kids' lies, it seems.


She was convicted by a jury, who presumably heard testimony from multiple witnesses.

Were you there? Do you know what really happened? Do you know how to extract facts from narratives in a news article? Do you even read the news article or just the headline?


> The anymore texts weren’t threatening in my opinion

that's not what the jury decided, nor what the lady was convicted over, this also not something that the lady is attempting to dispute in court. she can't even keep her story straight between herself and her lawyer about which texts she actually did sent.


She was convicted of a violent offense.

Are you disputing the verdict or the punishment?


> It was absurd, to the point the sentencing judge made his displeasure known.

The judge is free to dismiss the charge, if he thinks it's absurd. How did she end up with a conviction?


"You don't know but you have automatically deduced the cop was in the wrong, despite what the jury said."

One other point I forgot to mention - the judge suppressed key evidence in the case. There were photos of the cops abusing her that were never presented, and a slam-dunk photo of the cop grabbing her from behind that the jury was not permitted see.


No, everything you say here is incorrect. The case being described in that article IS the appeal to the ECHR, which upheld her conviction.

> the ruling suggests that her behavior was not antisocial by definition.

The law is not the definition of pro- or anti-social behavior.


> The result of the indictment was that she had to perform 60 hours of community service

I see a lot of discussion about who is at fault. Everyone sucks here, but my first question is who is this judge that did not throw this out in 2 seconds?? Cops, DAs, neighbors' bad behavior is one thing. Like what.


> She's been tried convicted and pardoned.

No, she has not been pardoned. She received clemency, which is substantively different than a pardon.


> In fairness, she is a convicted murderer.

Who did her time and paid her dues to society. That's the point of rehabilitation.


Again: her sentencing memorandum doesn't even seem to mention the kid. We should be careful about making stuff up to fit a narrative.

> Why would she be charged with manslaughter?

You are missing the point. She can always be charged with manslaughter and take her max of 10 years in prison, or she can plea bargain down to 1 month.

It's not about what you can prove, but what you can extort using trumped up charges to force a plea.

(I'm not being serious, but that was the OP's point i believe)


> She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone

She should be though. People had unnecessary and invasive medical treatment as a direct result pf her fraud.


It says she was found not guilty though? the rest of the article is paygated.

Also, it still doesn't seem to reference any deaths. There are no dead to be rehabilitated.


The fact that she is a mother should have no bearing on her sentence.
next

Legal | privacy